Gay Marriage At The Supreme Court

Gay MarriageFinally, the day that proponents of gay marriage have been waiting for is almost upon us. The Supreme Court will be hearing two cases this week that will help determine the course of our country for the next generation. Tuesday will see California’s ban on same-sex marriage being presented to the Supreme Court, in the form of Proposition 8. If you will recall, this is the ban that was voted on by citizens of California in 2008. Even though the state is as liberal as any state in America, the voters chose to ban gay marriage. Of course, it was immediately challenged and has finally made its way to the Supreme Court. The court can rule in a variety of ways, ranging from a narrow ruling that only strikes down Proposition 8, to a wide ruling that will affect the other 31 states that have amended their state constitutions to ban gay marriage.

The other case is the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Because it specifically defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the proponents of gay marriage have been after it for years. They are especially emboldened by the Obama administration’s lack of defense for DOMA. Eric Holder has said he believes the law is unconstitutional and has refused to defend it in court. I would expect nothing less from him and the Justice Department he heads. This case will be before the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Some may read this post and wonder what the big deal is. It seems to be the opinion of many people that we should live and let live when it comes to gay marriage. I have been asked countless times, what does allowing homosexuals to marry have to do with me. Because it does not affect me personally, I have been told they should be allowed to marry. Call me a stick in the mud, but I will never come to the place where I decide gay marriage is the proper or normal thing to do. By God’s law, homosexuality is an abomination. Therefore, gay marriage can be nothing less than an abomination before God, who created man and woman in his own image. I can see it no other way. This is not about equal protection under the law, but rather about the morality of our country.

Before the ruling on Obamacare was handed down by the Supreme Court, I would have thought God’s definition of marriage would be secure. Now, I am not so sure. It is anyone’s guess as to how the Supreme Court will rule in June. How they rule will affect our country for a very long time. The future of our country could very well be hanging in the balance. That may sound melodramatic to some, but I feel that strongly about this issue. Homosexuals have the personal right and freedom to do as they please and with such, to suffer the consequences in the judgement of God. Encroaching upon the sacred institution of marriage will be crossing a line of morality that can never be returned. America could very well suffer the consequences of allowing that line to be crossed.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2012 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com Jack Camwell

    “This is not about equal protection under the law, but rather about the morality of our country.”

    There are plenty of actions that are immoral yet not against the law or banned by law. Lying, for example, is only punishable by the law in certain circumstances.

    Usury is considered immoral to many religions, yet interest is something that is an integral part to modern banking.

    And whose God says that homosexuality is an abomination? Yours? Why is it that you think the country should follow the morality laid down by the Judeo-Christian God–a morality that is based on a 2,000 year old text?

    According to the Quran, drinking alcohol is immoral. Should we go back to prohibition since it is a sin according to one religion? The Mormons believe that caffeine is evil. Should the nation go decaf since one religion believes it’s immoral to ingest caffeine?

    You might say that those ideas are preposterous, and your idea of continuing the ban of gay marriage is completely fine by virtue of Christianity being the majority religion in this country, but isn’t that what the founding fathers wanted to avoid?

    Didn’t they rail against the notion of the “tyranny of the majority over the minority?”

    Two dudes getting married in Vermont makes no more difference in your life, or the life of any American citizen, than some random guy in Texas lying to his wife about staying at work late when he really went out with some friends for a drink.

    They’re gay, Larry. They have no more choice in whom they are attracted as you have. Sure, dude-on-dude action is pretty gross in my opinion, but just because I think it’s gross doesn’t make it immoral–and it certainly doesn’t give me the right to stand in the way of their happiness.

    Why is it that in this country we say that we’re all about the “pursuit of happiness,” but only if it is a happiness that doesn’t upset our precious moral sensibilities? The law exists to punish those who would do harm to others, not to keep us from living our lives as we see fit.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      Yes, it is my God who says homosexuality is an abomination. That 2,000 year old text is just as relevant in today’s world as it was when it was written. I don’t expect you to believe that or come across to my thinking, but it changes nothing. The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It also says He is the Lord God and He changes not.

      Two dudes getting married in Vermont may make no difference in my personal life, but it is just one more small step down the path of immorality that our country is on. And for what it’s worth, I think the man in Texas lying to his wife about where he has been is also wrong, although not on the same level as homosexuality.

      Yes, I know they are gay, but they were not created that way. It matters not to me that science has tried to convince us that homosexuals have no choice in how they feel or act. That is a lie from the very pits of hell and it has done nothing but send us down the path of immorality.

      Let me be clear about something. I do not believe homosexuality is a normal way of life and I do not believe they should have the right to marry. That doesn’t mean they should be mistreated and I would not be against civil unions that gave them the same legal rights as married couples. Marriage is supposed to be a sanctified union between one man and one woman and allowing homosexuals to encroach upon that is something they have been after for a very long time. Doing so will allow them to gain a semblance of normalcy for their sinful acts and that is something they should not be allowed to have. There is nothing normal about homosexuality, not now and not ever.

      • http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com Jack Camwell

        I don’t think I was very clear in my opening. The whole point that I was trying to bring up is that yes, your version of God says homosexuality is wrong. But what about the other versions?

        You didn’t answer my question about Islam and Mormonism. Both religions believe that alcohol is sinful, so why don’t we go back to prohibition? My point is that it seems a bit silly to choose one religious morality over another.

        There are certain things that are universally wrong in all cultures and in all belief structures. But homosexuality, historically, has not always been so detested.

        As for your refutation of the predisposition of homosexuality, I have one simple question: could you ever choose to be attracted to a man? Now, you might say “no, because homosexuality is immoral,” but the real answer is that even if you didn’t think it was sinful, you still could never CHOOSE to be attracted to men. Why? Because you’re heterosexual, and you’ve been that way your entire life.

        Take me for example. I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, but I still think it’s pretty gross (well, I don’t mind lesbians so much–typical man, I know). There is nothing on this earth that could ever make me attracted to men. I have never, not once in my life, ever felt physical attraction toward men.

        It’s not an argument from the pits of hell, it’s an educated approach to human behavior. You don’t think that your attraction to women is by choice do you? Or that you even really have any control over it? Physical attraction is merely a chemical response to certain stimuli.

        I’m not suggesting that you have to be okay with homosexuality, but what I am saying is that “gay marriage,” a term that circumvents your defense of the definition of “marriage” should be treated like any other normal marriage. Gay couples who are married by a religious institution or justice of the peace should enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

        Their rights should not be decided on how most people in America choose to worship their god.

        • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

          For the record, I also believe alcohol is sinful. There is plenty in the Bible about that as well. Prohibition, however, was not the answer to the problem of people drinking to excess.

          There is a simple answer to your question of why I am not attracted to other men. God created me that way, as he has created all other men. I realize you and I will never agree on this issue, but the Bible clearly teaches against homosexuality. I do not believe God created a single homosexual person.

          I am not interested in discriminating against homosexuals, or any other group of people, for that matter. They should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, but they should also understand they will suffer the consequences of their actions in the judgement of God. That belief covers all sinners, homosexual or not.

          • http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com Jack Camwell

            The judgment of God is only for God Himself to know, is it not?

            You say that God didn’t create homosexuals, and to me that implies that we are created in a state of perfection and it is through our choices that we become imperfect. If I have interpreted your words incorrectly, then please say so.

            But if that is truly your idea, then what about liars? Did God create pathological liars? Did he create psychopaths? How about children with congenital defects or developmental disabilities? There’s no moral implication behind that, but one would argue that although they are human beings just like anyone else, they clearly have imperfection.

            As I said before, physical attraction is merely the chemical response your brain has to particular stimuli. Larry, you simply cannot will yourself to not be attracted to someone whom you are attracted. Sure, you can ignore those feelings, but that usually requires distancing yourself from someone.

            Similarly, you cannot will yourself to be attracted to someone you find repugnant. Surely you’ve experienced that before in your life? I knew a girl in high school who had a great personality and was a good friend, but she wasn’t physically attractive to me. Try as I did, I could not will myself to be physically attracted to.

            That may sound shallow, but it has to do with brain chemistry. I know, in my heart, that I could never in a million years be sexually attracted towards another man. God doesn’t deny me that, and I certainly am not making a conscious choice to not find men sexually attractive. I simply cannot.

            Human behavior is not determined by how God created us. There’s far too much science that proves genetic predisposition to all sorts of behaviors. Homosexuals are not people who have all experienced some sort of trauma in their life that suddenly changed them into homosexuals. For the most part, they are people who have felt same-sex attraction from the moment that they felt sexual attraction.

            It’s luck of the draw, Larry, not some sort of divine ordinance. God did not make you straight, friend. Your brain development made you straight. It’s science.

            • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

              Obviously, you and I are not going to agree on this issue. It is an easy thing for me to believe that God did not create a single homosexual. The reason is that I believe strongly in the Bible and it teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

              As for your examples about lying, as well as homosexuality, let me put it this way. God’s creation is perfect. It always has been and always will be. It is man who has perverted God’s creation into something that was never meant to be.

  • Bettybb

    Have you considered looking at the issue from a different angle?

    Your brand of Christianity says that homosexuality and gay marriage is immoral.

    There are other religious groups, including many Christian churches, that believe gay marriage is Christian.

    You think they are 100% wrong. They think you are 100% wrong.

    Our constitution provides that we each have freedom of religion.

    The people who think gay marriage is Christian do not have the right to pass a law forcing your church to marry same sex couples. That would violate your freedom of religion.

    You do not have the right to pass a law preventing other churches from marrying same sex couples. That would violate their freedom of religion.

    In other words, you are free to practice your brand of Christianity, but you are not entitled to force others to practice it.

    We would all like everyone to agree with our position on issues, but one of the greatest strengths of our country is that we believe in liberty. That is exactly what gays are fighting for, the liberty to hold their own beliefs,to live their lives according to those beliefs and not have their human rights denied because of someone else’s religion.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      It is not my brand of Christianity that says homosexuality is immoral. It is the Bible that says it and it says it very plainly, with no room for error in the interpretation.

      As I said in my reply to Jack, let homosexuals have civil unions that give them the same legal rights as married couples. That’s fine, even though I disagree vehemently with their lifestyle, but they should not have the right to encroach upon marriage. If they accomplish that, it is something that we may very well never recover.

  • http://www.charlesmphipps.com Charles Phipps

    You are absolutely correct, Larry. Homosexuality is an abomination and to put the public stamp of approval on it by equating a gay couple with a man and a woman is morally reprehensible. That said, I would not be the least bit surprised to see the Supreme Court make gay marriage allowable everywhere. I fully expect it to happen at some point in the future, if not now. We have become an immoral nation with people doing what they want, when they want, with whomever they want. A nation that allows the murder of millions of babies is already so far away from the moral line drawn by God that allowing gays to marry will not be the least bit surprising.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I will not be surprised at any ruling the Supreme Court hands down. After the ruling on Obamacare, anything is fair game. Our immorality will be the downfall of our country.

  • JT

    This is a sensitive topic, that is for sure. To get back to the question of Proposition 8 in California, there is actually a bigger question at stake than that on the right to marry. It is the right of the voters. An amendment to the Calif. Constitution was voted upon and passed by a clear majority. The courts want to overturn a legal vote because they disagree with it on a philosophical basis. Bear in mind that this admendment DOES NOT conflict with the US Constitution, so the challengers want to equate marriage with civil rights. So the worrisome question..will the Supreme Court give more power to the Judicary and allow it to overturn a constitutional vote? If it does, then where will it end? Judges will have unlimited power to draft and craft state constitutions…or forbid the thought…create their own amendmets to the US Constitution. The question of legal marriages should be kept in the realm of the individual states, their legislature, and their voters. If the Gay Marriage proponents want to make it legal, they need to pass their own amendment..if they can get the votes, instead of shoving through the back door of the courthouse. The will of the voters should remain the supreme voice in government. That is how a representative democracy works…should work

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      The right of the voters isn’t something I touched on, but you are correct. Proposition 8 was legally approved by the voters of California. Does the Judicial Branch of our government have the right or the authority to overturn their decision, simply for the philosophical disagreement you stated? I think not, but who knows how the Supreme Court will rule.

      You are spot on about the rights of the states. As much as I disagree with homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it is not something for the federal government to be involved in. It should be left to the states, but given the recent propensity of the Judicial Branch to legislate from the bench, I’ll be surprised if they do.

  • http://www.stevenbirnspeaks.com Steven Birn

    The left-wing media is now telling us that homosexual marriage is conservative. It’s amazing to watch the moral decline of our nation coupled with the media newspeak of the left.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I read an article where a lawyer arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8 said that very thing, that it was a conservative ideal to argue for gay marriage. The play and twist on words and ideas is amazing to see.

  • http://americaswatchtower.com Steve Dennis

    I am a live and let live sort of person but my problem with gay marriage is in the fact that marriage is first and foremost a religious institution. However marriage does come with political benefits which is why I would rather see civil unions, or remove the political benefits from marriage and get the government out of this business altogether.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      Even though I disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage, these people do have the right to live their lives as they see fit. I just draw the line when it comes to them being able to marry. Give them civil unions with the same legal rights as married couples, but not marriage itself.

    • Acethepug

      Steve,

      I agree completely. I have no problems with a civil union that is in every way identical to marriage in all but name, but for whatever reason that compromise was blown away some time ago.

      It’s odd, how the progression has been;

      First, it was “we don’t need the straights to acknowledge our relationships,”

      Then it did move towards the civil unions idea, which seemed to make most everyone happy, or at least give them what they wanted (for the religious, it didn’t force their churches to yield on theological ground, and for the homosexuals, I thought it solved the issues of taxes, of estate planning and hospital rights, etc)

      Now it seems that it HAS to be marriage. I don’t understand the demand, here. It really seems that, to a small but vocal segment of the proponents, that this is all about sticking it to religion and society, as opposed to any real concern of rights.

      But I fully admit that this is merely my perception.

      Thanks for posting!

  • Bettybb

    I get it that there are those that oppose marriage equality on religious grounds. But not everyone agrees with that interpretation of the Bible.
    Locally, one of our Methodist churches has announced it will perform same sex marriages. Other Christians who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible:

    a)United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies.

    b)Lutheran: Lutheran churches can decide, on a church-by-church basis, whether or not to perform same-sex marriage.

    c)Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Certain dioceses can perform full marriage ceremonies.

    d) Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers.

    e) Metropolitan Community Church

    f) Unitarian Universalist

    Prop 8 was passed by the voters but it is subject to review under the terms of the US Constitution. I believe it is being argued that it violates the 14th amendment equal protection provisions. The US Supreme Court has ruled many times that marriage is a fundamental human right. A majority can pass a law, but if it violates our constitutional rights, it will not be allowed to stand.

    Re Civil Unions… if we have learned anything from the US history of segregation is that separate does not mean equal.

    Homosexuality is standard in the animal kingdom which makes it rather difficult to say it is a lifestyle choice.
    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

    I think the Court will rule for marriage equality. The 9th circuit Court of Appeals in the CA case tailored its judgment to prior rulings by Justice Kennedy to increase the chance he will declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. Plus, it has been announced that Chief Justice Robert’s niece, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, is going to attend the hearing. Since he has a gay family member, I think it makes it more likely he will understand the human aspect of the issue.

  • http://www.sentryjournal.com John Carey

    This confuses me. So does the left want separation of church and state or not? I mean they have worked for many years to advance the “separation of church and state” view and now they want the state to intervene in a matter that is clearly church related. It sounds like they want their cake and eat it to. I mean the left desires a secular society that removes all public references to God in our schools and our government. They want this separation. Yet they’re ok with the state defining exactly what marriage is and what it encompasses. This doesn’t make sense to me. I personally believe the state and federal government should stay out of trying to define marriage. Can someone tell me or help me understand why the government should be permitted to intervene in what I see as a religious issue, but the church cannot intervene in government issues?

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I agree that the government should stay out of the business of marriage. It should be reserved for the church. The one caveat would be when the homosexuals refuse to abide by that decision. I firmly believe they will never be satisfied until they have the “blessing” of the church. They want us to accept their perverted lifestyle as normal and gay marriage would be a part of that acceptance. They will be satisfied with nothing less.

      • http://the-classic-liberal.com/ theCL

        The one caveat would be when the homosexuals refuse to abide by that decision.

        Well, if government wasn’t in the marriage business to begin with, there’s nothing for them to “refuse to abide.” Which brings us to the real problem … government.

        Politicize something – anything – enforce it with government guns, and … Yes, there will be a fight. Always and everywhere.

        The left, obviously, but the right gives the State way too much credit too. The State is not society, nor is it your community, and certainly it’s not your church. It can sanctify nothing (it is a golden calf). It is not anyone’s mom or dad. It is nothing more than an institution that exists only through sinful means.

        What? Take away their “legitimized” theft and violence, and the State simply could not exist. So why do Christians put so much faith in these kingdoms that Christ refused when offered by Satan?

        100 years ago, progressives saw government as a tool not only to keep men virtuous, but perfect them as well. The roles seem to be reversing, because today it’s the right who seems to believe that government can, and will, immanentize the eschaton.

        Separation of church and state protects the religious most of all. So if we insist on this keeping this “necessary evil,” it should deal strictly with contracts, not with sacred unions. Two people, for just about any reason whatsoever, can come together on contractual terms – hetero, homo, doesn’t matter. Marriage stays a religious institution, period (never forgetting St. Thomas Aquinas’ lesson on toleration).

        But … when government is involved, as it is today, marriage becomes a political – not religious – institution. Once you allow the government to discriminate against one, eventually it will discriminate against you.

  • http://capitolcommentary.com Harrison

    I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Let churches forbid gays from marrying but I don’t believe the Government should be in that business. If you are of sound mind and an adult it should be your decision.

    Gay marriage is a huge distraction for the GOP and the sooner they get out of the morality business the better.

    Put the resources into trying to reduce abortion is what I say.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      See my reply to John. I would be okay with the government staying out of the business of marriage, but I do not believe the homosexual community will be satisfied with that. Gay marriage is a line in the sand for me, a line that should not be crossed.

      • http://capitolcommentary.com Harrison

        …and the “way out” of this might be to punt and leave it up to the states – I wouldn’t want that – or to just get out of the marriage business entirely.

  • Bettybb

    John Carey,

    I am a progressive Dem so I guess I qualify as the “left”. I will attempt to explain from my point of view.

    The government is involved in marriage because if confers benefits on married people in terms of right to inheritance, tax breaks, medical treatment authority, parental authority and responsibilities etc. So for our secular government, marriage is not a religious issue but a question of various societal rights and responsibilities. We are staying true to our Founders’ vision of separation of church and state; we are a country where there is freedom of religion but no government imposed religion. People fled their home countries and came to America to get away from government mandated religion.

    Since there is serious disagreement even among Christian churches, with an increasing number approving gay marriage, the government must stay neutral.In other words, the government cannot enforce one group’s religious view of morality on every other religious group by banning same sex marriage.

    The government has to let people have freedom of religion and stop discriminating against gays. Gay people are Americans, and are entitled to the same government conferred rights as all other Americans. Those churches that believe gay marriage is moral and right, must be able to marry gays, and those who think it is immoral and wrong, must be allowed to refuse to marry gays.

    Maybe it would be better for us to refer to the government sanctioned “marriage” as civil unions. There are other countries that split the two. You have two ceremonies, one a civil one for the government and another religious one at the church if you want it.

    As there are an increasing number of churches who will marry gays, gays would be able to have a government civil union and a religious marriage too. But heck, that is what freedom is all about. We are free to make our own choices and decide what religious beliefs we adopt.

  • http://Www.bunkerville.wordpress.com Bunkerville

    Jim over at consevatives on fire has asked that I let people know that Venezuela has shut down his access to his blog via WordPress.

  • Pingback: Wednesday AM Motivational Images: Links, Girls and Guns - Conservative Hideout 2.0

  • Bettybb

    If this site is for posting of conservative view only, just say so, and I will not post.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I’m not sure why you questioned if this blog was only for conservative views. I have approved all of your comments, even though I disagree with your viewpoint. As long as you keep it civil, as you have done, you are welcome to post your view.

  • Bettybb

    Thank you for your response. I was wondering because of Bunkerville’s rely to my comment which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly)as request that I be banned. There is no question that you have been most gracious and I do find it interesting to read the other point of view.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      No, Bunkerville was not trying to get you banned. He was merely informing us that another conservative blogger who lives in Venezuela has had his access to WordPress shut down. Nothing more than that.